GEIPAN Case 2009-07-02361 — RIXHEIM (68) 26.07.2009

Brief

On the evening of July 26, 2009, a witness in Rixheim (68170) observed a white luminous point moving linearly south-to-north for 7-8 seconds at an elevation of 25-35 degrees, behavior consistent with an artificial satellite, then lost the object briefly. On relocating it, the object had entered a curved trajectory, appeared to culminate closest to the observer from the southeast, then progressively receded and vanished into open sky with the impression of sinking into deep space. The attached celestial chart, set to 23h45 local time at the witness's precise coordinates (47°44'40.52"N, 7°24'38.74"E, alt. 239m), maps the two-phase trajectory; the IPN (lead investigator) note explicitly cautions that the post-hoc daytime reconstruction carries significant azimuth and elevation error. Jupiter, the dominant bright object in the sky that night, was blocked from the witness's view by a neighboring house and is ruled out as an explanation.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

2 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED (GEIPAN D1)

Programs

GEIPAN, GEPAN, SEPRA

Tags

white luminous point, direction change, two-phase trajectory, linear then curved, disappearance into open sky, Rixheim, Alsace, 2009, GEIPAN D1

Key points

• The celestial chart is set to 23h45 HL on Friday, July 26, 2009, at the witness's home coordinates in Rixheim — approximately 1h25m later than the 22h20 start time recorded in the case description, a discrepancy the document does not reconcile.p.1
• Witness location pinpointed to sub-arcsecond precision: 47°44'40.52"N, 7°24'38.74"E, altitude 239m above sea level.p.1
• Phase 1 (points 1-2 on chart): regular, apparently rectilinear progression south-to-north, characterized by the IPN as satellite-like in appearance.p.2
• Phase 2 (points 3-7 on chart): curved trajectory with apparent closest approach at southeastern culmination, followed by progressive recession and disappearance into open sky.p.2
• The IPN smoothed the Phase 2 curve to approximate the witness's qualitative description of a gentle arc, explicitly acknowledging the result is highly approximate.p.2
• The IPN flags that projecting a spherical celestial surface onto a flat plane itself distorts the mental visualization of the trajectory, compounding reconstruction uncertainty.p.2
• Jupiter (magnitude -2.38, azimuth 131°19', height 14°16') was masked by a neighboring house and is excluded as a candidate explanation.p.2

Verbatim

• Le trait jaune correspond à la trajectoire apparente présumée.

  p.2

• Les points étoilés et numérotés correspondent aux points estimés (mesures) par le témoin durant la reconstitution (diurne !).

  p.2

• Il est évident qu'elle s'en trouve, de ce fait, très approchée, d'autant que la marge d'erreur sur l'estimation a posteriori (et de jour) des hauteurs et azimuts ne peut être qu'importante.

  p.2

• une progression régulière et apparemment rectiligne (style satellite artificiel)

  p.2

• courbe régulière (type changement de cap d'un avion)

  p.2

• éloignement progressif avant disparition en plein ciel (avec impression de « s'enfoncer ver le ciel profond»)

  p.2

• la planète Jupiter (mag : -2.38 - Azimut : 131° 19' - Hauteur : 14°16') était masquée à la vue du témoin par la maison voisine.

  p.2

Most interesting

• The IPN's use of 'diurne !' with an exclamation mark signals quiet skepticism: the witness reconstructed elevation and azimuth estimates during daylight hours, without the visual references that were present during the nighttime sighting.
• The phrase 's'enfoncer vers le ciel profond' (sinking into deep sky) implies the object faded as if increasing its distance from Earth rather than moving laterally out of view — a perceptual cue that would be consistent with a departure on a radial heading.
• A 1h25m gap exists between the description blurb's stated observation start time (22h20) and the chart's reconstruction time (23h45 HL); neither the chart nor its commentary explains this offset.
• Jupiter was the brightest object in the Rixheim sky that night at magnitude -2.38 — brighter than anything else visible — yet it was occluded by a house, meaning the investigator had to explicitly eliminate it rather than use it as an anchor for the witness's position estimates.
• GEIPAN's D1 classification places this case in the 'peu étrange, reste inexpliqué' category — acknowledged as not strongly anomalous by agency standards, yet still unresolved after investigation.